That doesn't mean you can't be there reduce inequality and cut growth at the same time (I can name some countries that did it!). But it means that cutting growth makes the job of reducing inequality that much harder.
-
-
Show this thread
-
And if you want to not just cut inequality but actually RAISE living standards for the poor while also cutting growth...good luck!!
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
If ‘g’ stands for growth, what does ‘r’ stand for?
-
The return on capital
-
Here's a four paragraph summary which, given that the book is about 600 pages long, really isn't too bad.https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/05/04/thomas-pikettys-capital-summarised-in-four-paragraphs …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
As Christopher Hitchens said of Mother Teresa, they're not a friend of the poor; they're a friend of poverty.
-
Nice play on words! Now, try to do something real, for someone, sometime...
-
Mother Teresa did very little for the poor, as it happens.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Piketty's - and Scheidel's - observation that inequality has historically been addressed by massive catastrophe's doesn't mean we need to decrease growth to attain more equality. His suggestion is large taxation to prevent to lower r not decrease g.
-
Those growth rates under high taxes were at a time when the US had industrial hegemony over the world post-WWII. So unless you are suggesting launching an apocalyptic war against the globe to destroy their industrial bases, shelve the idea of top rates going that high again.
-
Rather, what we should be aiming for is total overhaul of the tax system that captures the source of increasing wealth inequality by taxing the rich for while causing no deadweight loss. And that tax reform is to shift from labor & capital taxes to land value tax.
-
Those are *employment* growth rates, not GDP. The postwar boom in overall growth was hardly even two years long:pic.twitter.com/Sa2DaRO9OH
-
My comments referred exactly to the fact that they are employment growth rates. GDP & employment growth obviously both benefit when your country has an industrial hegemony post-WWII. And such a dividend will last not two years, but decades as other economies rebuild from scratch.
-
Also, growth rates in GDP and employment are just going to slow over time for a major economy because the ratio of new income (created by new jobs) to total income will fall to an asymptotic limit. To attribute lower employment growth rates now than before to the fact that....
-
.... there were higher top marginal tax rates before, when in fact the US economy was at a point of development that enabled it to see higher rates of employment growth & was uniquely enabled to do so by global economic circumstances, just seems to me like incorrect reasoning.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Someday, we’ll hafta reckon with the fact that growth cannot be infinite. We will not be able to grow our economy in such a way as to run away from every pinch
-
I disagree. As more of our consumption becomes services, not goods and as energy becomes cheaper, then growth can occur with less or no resources.
-
Not indefinitely. Not without continuing population growth.
-
You're assuming efficiency remains constant. It doesn't; per capita production can be effectively infinitely increased.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.